If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

BP Magazine will apparently publish anything. They have a "Gear Expert" column in which "Gear Chick" Christian Hostter dispenses her "expert advice" - here are two of her recent vomits:

Her first irritating answer:

Q.} Dear Kristin, I want to start going ultralight. I've looked at tarps and bivy sacks but what do you think about hammocks? They look nice, but do they really work?
Submitted by:

A.} The thing about hammocks is that you have to find trees that will cooperate. In other words they have to be the correct distance apart (approximately 10-25 feet depending on the model) and strong enough to support you. In reality, I find this a bit tough. Tougher, that is, than finding a relatively flat piece of ground to pitch a tent on. But if you typically hike in forests that offer plenty of hammock-friendly trees, hammocks can be wicked comfortable. And they eliminate the need to carry a sleeping pad.

My Comments: First, for those of us who hike where there are trees it is way more difficult to find a flat piece of ground not strewn with rocks or roots to pitch a tent. Second, I doubt the person who wrote the question was asking about using a hammock where there are no tress,unles he or she is mentally challenged ("hey Christian, I'm thinking of camping above treeline, what hammock should I use?). Third, we can all tell from her answer that she has never ever used a hammock for camping.

Her second know-nothing reply:

Q.} I bought a pair of Swiss Gear poles from Wal-Mart for $17.00 just to see if I liked using them and have been very satisfied. I learned I do like using the poles and I've seen much more expensive ones in my local outdoor shop. What's the difference? Should I step up and buy the pricier ones? Thanks
Submitted by: Mike

A.}
Since you've already made the investment and the poles are working for you, why bother? Drive your Wal-Mart specials into the ground, then re-invest when they konk out. The price difference comes down to two things: materials and features. Chances are, your poles have plastic grips, which get sweaty and are less comfortable to grasp than the rubber or cork handles on pricier models.

Also, I'd bet that your poles don't collapse. I always pack poles on my trips, but since I sometimes like to have my hands free, I always use poles that shrink down to a couple feet or so. This allows me to strap them onto the side of my pack or stuff them in a duffel for airport travel. Shock absorbers are another feature that bump up the price. Some people like the feel of walking with spring-loaded poles, but I don't really feel the difference. My perfect pole: lightweight collapsible aluminum ones with cushy, contoured rubber grips and adjustable wrist straps.

My comment: I bought a pair of those swis gear hiking poles from Wal-mart last year. They have cork grips, adjutable hand straps, shock absobers and collaspe - just like the $80/pair of leki's I own, but they only cost $10 per pole. So Christian loses the bet. I'll bet Wal-mart doesn't advertise in BP Magazine.

This chick obviously has no clue what whe's talking about. Kinda hard to dispense so-called "expert advice" when you're not an expert on the subject which you're advising. I'd relly like to see BP mag pull its head out of its butt the next time they try to tell folks about the advantages, joys and wonder of hammocking, but I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

"If you play a Nicleback song backwards, you'll hear messages from the devil. Even worse, if you play it forward, you'll hear Nickleback." - Dave Grohl

[I]
Those poles are not the equal to the higher priced poles in terms of weight, but they are very serviucable and function just like the big boys.

I borrowed & used a set of the $10.00 trekking poles from wal-mart for a year or so.
My biggest complaint was that you had to be careful not to put full weight on them or they would slide/shorten, even if i had them as tight as i dared tighten them.
But other than that, they did OK... just didn't have that same feel as a nicer set<G>.

We had quite an exchange with some of us in the Clark Yahoo groups forums and Kristin Hostetter...I am copying and pasting one of her emails to us below...I explains who the testers were...I got this back at the end of April/beginning of May

From the title of our magazine, it's evident from what perspective we
view the world. We're backpackers and within that realm, sleeping in
a hammock is just one of many ways to camp. They're shelters, and so
are tents, bivies, and tarps.

Contrary to Clark's Yahoo forum posting, we haven't ignored hammocks
as a legitimate shelter option for a decade—we review them from time
to time and keep them updated in our online Gear Finder. But,
compared to other shelters, yeah, they don't see the same amount of
ink. The reason is simple: the vast majority of our readership
sleeps in tents, and thereby those shelters get the most play. Tents
also have far more versatility, styles, sizes, and manufacturers.

Clark's comments and call to action was made without ever having read
our review (which won't even be on the stands until 5/12). They were
made within minutes after one email exchange and zero phone
conversations.

Had Clark asked a few more questions or picked up the phone, he would
have discovered that our review is not of the "best 4 camping
hammocks brands" as his posting indicated. In fact, it isn't even
strictly a hammock review. It's a small roundup of lightweight
shelters including bivies, tarps, and hammocks. There will be three
products in the magazine and three more in an online version. The
title is "Shelters Plus: These 3 shelters do more than keep you
dry". From the title, you'll gather that the shelters in the review
have multiple uses or functionality.

Here's how our testing went in regard, specifically, to the hammocks:
We called in and tested over a dozen hammocks and field-tested them
in a variety of conditions over an eight-month period. Our test-group
used them on trips ranging from two-days to two-weeks in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Tennessee, North Carolina,
Colorado, and West Virginia.

Regarding the experience of our test-group: We had six testers, male
and female, living in different regions of the country. One was a
highly experienced hammock-camper having section-hiked much of the AT
with a hammock. One was not keen on hammocks at all (this test was a
failed attempt to convert him). The other four were among our most
discriminating shelter testers. All six have a wealth of backcountry
experience, ranging from summiting Denali to bike-touring across the
country to knocking down huge sections of long trail. Two were former
Outward Bound instructors. Three have had other types of professional
guiding jobs… you get the idea.

Clark and many of the people who have contacted us based on his call
to action, have expressed dismay that we used "testers far less
experienced than our (Clark's) customers." We feel that this is a
pretty ridiculous statement, and reflects a misunderstanding of how
an impartial product review works. Getting Clark customers to test
hammocks would be preaching to the choir. The key point is this: We
don't choose our testers based on the product, we use experienced
wilderness experts to see if products make sense for serious
wilderness experiences.

In fact, in the opening description of a separate Yahoo Group forum
on hammock camping, it says "Whether you are car camping or heading
into the deep wilderness, you may never sleep on the ground again!
Thousands of happy campers have switched already; what are you
waiting for?" That is exactly the perspective from which we entered
into this test: to see if hammocks work well and provide comfort in
the variety of conditions that we—and our readers--face. As a whole,
we feel they did not.

After the testing period, we got two main complaints about hammock
camping in general from the majority of our test group: 1.) The
curved sleeping position was uncomfortable and not easy to adapt to.
2.) Testers slept colder than in traditional shelters like tents.

So the hammocks we chose to feature either had a more horizontal
and "flat" sleeping position allowing for back, side, and belly
sleepers; had multiple uses (designed specifically to be pitched as a
ground shelter or rigged as a hammock); or had a stellar under-side
insulation system.

Only one hammock in our test had catastrophic durability problems,
and it wasn't a Clarks. There were no fatal design, construction, or
material flaws in the Clarks hammocks we tested. In fact, most
testers were quite impressed with its engineering, though as
mentioned earlier, we chose to feature hammocks that more effectively
negated our test-groups two main beefs.

Hopefully, addresses everyone's concerns. We encourage you to log
onto our website, backpacker.com and respond to the story when it
gets posted (some time in mid to late May).

************************************************** **

I, for one, am thankful there are not all that many converts to hammock camping...leaves more tree for me!

I borrowed & used a set of the $10.00 trekking poles from wal-mart for a year or so.
My biggest complaint was that you had to be careful not to put full weight on them or they would slide/shorten, even if i had them as tight as i dared tighten them.
But other than that, they did OK... just didn't have that same feel as a nicer set<G>.

I had a similar experince. And to a much lesser extent I had that same problem with my leki's. Last year I bought a set of the black diamond with the cam locks and I've eliminated the problem

If the so-called gear expert Kristian Hostetter had brought up that point I would have no beef with her review. instead, she pontificated facts about the features of the walmart poles that were completely false.

She did what I call "puke spewing" - saying something she didn't whether it was true or not becuse she thinks people expect her to know the answer and she is too insecure to admit that she simply dosen't know the answer.

My clients ask me questions all the time expecting me to know the answer when in fact I don't. I simply reply "I don't know, would you like me to research it?"

Hostetter showd in that one reply that what she says is not necessarily based on knowledge. That alone is suffcient to question everything she says because you can never know whether she is "puke spewing" or speaking from knowledge unless you already know the answer. In which case you would never have need to seek her so-called expert opinion.

The reason is simple: the vast majority of our readership
sleeps in tents, and thereby those shelters get the most play. Tents
also have far more versatility, styles, sizes, and manufacturers.

title is "Shelters Plus: These 3 shelters do more than keep you
dry". From the title, you'll gather that the shelters in the review
have multiple uses or functionality.

Multiple uses or functionality indicates versatility to me. A hammock system is inherently versitile when you carry a pad because now you could use a "tent site" or hang.

We feel that this is a pretty ridiculous statement, and reflects a misunderstanding of how an impartial product review works. Getting Clark customers to test hammocks would be preaching to the choir.

One was a highly experienced hammock-camper having section-hiked much of the AT with a hammock. One was not keen on hammocks at all (this test was a failed attempt to convert him).

I think if they were truely concerned about the impartiality of reviewers, they would have left out these two testers. Especially Grumpy McGee...

After the testing period, we got two main complaints about hammock
camping in general from the majority of our test group: 1.) The
curved sleeping position was uncomfortable and not easy to adapt to.
2.) Testers slept colder than in traditional shelters like tents.

I know I am "preaching to the choir" here, but this is the reason more knowledgeable testers are likely to get more realistic results. There isn't a forum dedicated to hammock camping, where hundreds of us talk about using our hammocks in conditions ranging from near-blizzard to monsoon like rainstorms because we like to be uncomfortable and cold.

Hammock camping is kind of like riding a motorcycle. It takes a bit of precision and in the wrong hands, it could be disastorous. Tents are more like a school bus, or something...

"...and field-tested them
in a variety of conditions over an eight-month period. Our test-group
used them on trips ranging from two-days to two-weeks in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Tennessee, North Carolina,
Colorado, and West Virginia."

only one western (mountain) state? ok, I say, fair enough. But then there's this:

"...expressed dismay that we used "testers far less
experienced than our (Clark's) customers. We feel that this is a
pretty ridiculous statement"

but then she adds this?!

"One was not keen on hammocks at all (this test was a
failed attempt to convert him)."

she continues... "After the testing period, we got two main complaints about hammock
camping in general from the majority of our test group: 1.) The
curved sleeping position was uncomfortable and not easy to adapt to."

but wait...

"In fact, most
testers were quite impressed with its (the clark's) engineering, though as
mentioned earlier, we chose to feature hammocks that more effectively
negated our test-groups two main beefs."

so how many of you Clark users sleep like a banana?
(oh, but wait, you're not as qualified as the other guy(s))
maybe you should trade your far more popular Clark for a Lawson, of which I have not even seen much discussion on the site that specializes in hammocks and their uses...

this woman doesnt deserve a job sweeping the floor of WalMart much less writing for a medium that professes its all-knowingness of the gear industry and its uses. Bah Humbug.